GEORGE Leslie (Letters, June 14) writes: "If only British and Scottish politics would stop navel-gazing and concentrate on reforming the EU".

Mr Leslie doesn't specify what reforms he would like to see, but I remember Tony Blair renouncing half of the rebate negotiated by Margaret Thatcher in exchange for reforms of the Common Agricultural Policy, which appears to have changed little in the intervening period. Then between late 2015 and early 2016, Mr Cameron and a number of ministers paid visits to various European cities, where they were photographed shaking hands and smiling with sundry European national politicians and miscellaneous EU functionaries, all of whom, we were assured, shared HM Government's view of the necessity for structural and functional reform of parts of the EU.

Only they didn't. Of course, Mr Cameron had done his position a great disservice by letting it be publicly known that his and the Government's preferred outcome in the referendum would be a good sized Remain majority, so his opposite numbers were quite happy to offer him trivial concessions, relating to peripheral issues, which could be rescinded at any point by the relevant EU governing bodies, and even these were grudgingly offered.

At the same time, it was public knowledge that Mario Draghi, Jean-Claude Juncker and Donald Tusk were preparing plans which, within a decade of being launched, would have produced further economic, fiscal, military and social integration, albeit that these were aimed at countries in the Eurozone.

We are repeatedly reminded of the narrowness of the Leave win in the 2016 referendum. I often suspect that, if Mr Cameron had been able to return with demonstrable evidence of a commitment to reform (say) the relationship between the EU Commission and its Parliament and/or the national and devolved legislatures of component nation states, or amendments to the common agricultural or fisheries policies, a number of those who eventually voted Leave might have decided that we were not such xenophobes/little Englanders after all, and put our crosses in the Remain box instead.

Christopher W Ide,

25 Riverside Road, Waterfoot, East Renfrewshire.

AS I have written before, the EU Withdrawal Bill debacle is a win-win for the SNP. After 50 years of decentralising power away from London to Scotland, firstly to the Scottish Office then an elected Parliament, the Tories have pulled the plug, in a bid for “more Union” as Ruth Davidson has bluntly put it. Since every poll I have seen for years has given preference to Holyrood over Westminster for both trust and the exercise of power, this can only be a bad move for the Tories. It is also difficult to see any positives for the Labour Party either. Labour in the Lords and the Commons seems to be more sympathetic with Theresa May’s power grab than protecting the principle of devolved government which it invented. Donald Dewar once led his Scottish Labour MPs out of the Commons chamber in protest, a move the present lot would never emulate.

While the SNP has few friends in the media, it really didn’t have to do much to achieve a result in the eyes of the public ("Surge in SNP membership after leader's Westminster walkout", The Herald, June 15). The walkout was all too predictable, but effective. The fact that the wording used by its political and media enemies to attack it has been exactly the same, diminishes the impact it would normally carry. It smells like Unionist spin and propaganda emanating from No 10.

This could all have been so different. Edinburgh has the same needs for stability as London after Brexit. Negotiations between the four home nations for common ground over repatriated powers, with a little give and take, would have resulted in agreement. London would certainly still have led, and with agreement all would have saved face.

Now the Tory diktat means every piece of negative news for farmers and fishermen will be laid at the door of Westminster instead of being shared around. And the one thing we can agree on – there will be bad news to come aplenty.

GR Weir,

17 Mill Street, Ochiltree.

IN an otherwise excellent article, Andrew McKie(“Defeat for EU Withdrawal Bill would be democratic sabotage”, The Herald, June 12) is unfair to Prime Minister Theresa May who, whatever her faults, has remained fairly in control of the poisoned chalice inherited from her predecessor and has evolved, despite widespread opposition by politicians, bureaucrats and the media, from politician into statesman.

Where Mr McKie is absolutely correct, however, is in describing the Lords amendments to the EU Withdrawal Bill as “mostly pointless except as wrecking manoeuvres”.

And who instigated this series of wrecking manoeuvres, designed at least to hamper the progress of the Bill? None other than Lord John Kerr of Kinlochard, deputy chairman of Scottish Power plc, subsidiary of Spanish power giant Iberdrola, that has somehow contrived to be simultaneously not only a producer of electricity (683 turbines in Scotland alone at the last count) but also a major player in Britain’s national grid together with distribution, sales and services.

However, Lord Kerr’s main interest is not commercial. Although he is generally credited with the introduction of Article 50 in the 2007 Reform Treaty, better known as the Treaty of Lisbon and de facto EU Constitution, his name is associated with more than merely one article of this treaty.

For of the four signatories to its initial draft, the first is the President of the Convention on the Future of Europe, a body commissioned by the European Council to prepare it, followed by its two vice-presidents, who are merely figureheads; the fourth is Britain’s erstwhile highest-ranking diplomat, Secretary-General to the Convention, John Kerr, who, whether or not he was personally responsible for the inclusion of Article 50, would certainly be in charge of the overall production of this momentous document.

And Lord Kerr is an advisor to Scotland’s First Minister. We do not know what kind of advice this subtle and experienced power-broker (in both senses of the word) has given to Ms Sturgeon but she is playing an odd game with regard to a Scottish independence referendum.

After years of assuming that Scotland’s “membership” of the EEC/EU would continue after the break-up of Britain, the SNP appears to be coming to terms with Scotland as an EU region and transferring its energies to the contest at Westminster where a second Brexit referendum may well reverse the verdict of the first. The current pressure from Scotland must be a serious aggravation of the stress under which the Prime Minister is so manfully labouring and it is difficult to understand how the sneers of the world would benefit Scotland, should she be driven to resign.

(Mrs) Mary Rolls,

58 Castlegate, Jedburgh.